gmail_message_trash

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses reversibility and duration, but omits details like required permissions, thread-level effects, or the behavior if the message is already trashed. This is adequate but not thorough for a mutation action.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and includes a parenthetical qualifier for reversibility. Perfectly concise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, no annotation coverage, and minimal description, the tool is under-documented. The agent lacks information about return values, error conditions, or handling of edge cases (e.g., message already in trash). Requires significant inference.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning neither the schema nor the description explains the parameters. The description does not mention 'account' or 'message_id', leaving the agent to guess their meaning. This severely undermines correct invocation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Move a message to Trash') and includes a key behavioral detail (reversible for 30 days). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like gmail_message_get (read-only) and gmail_send (send email).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., permanent deletion, archiving). It does not mention prerequisites or constraints beyond the 30-day reversibility, leaving the agent to infer appropriate use cases.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.